Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server In true Microsoft fashion, this really means "the command line is the only part of the server that actually works."
The difference is a judge decided that it was reasonable to assume this guy had done something illegal and might flee if left unwatched. The judge decided that there was at least some evidence this guy had doen something.
In the Verison case, the RIAA has assumed this person has done soemthing illegal and now wants their name. The RIAA is under no burden to prove that there is in fact any evidence he did, they only have to reach the point where they can suspect he did. In such a case, anyone (you, me, or even the village idiot) could suspect you had violated their copyright and thus request your name. Let's for example, say that a stalker was folllowing you online. In order to get your name, all they would have to do is get a little information (ip address), file a patent or copyight, and then go to Verison and claim you violated it and that they need to give you taht person's name. All that stalker would need to do is claim you violated it and Verison is forced to supply your name. If you don't see the potential abuse of this, both private and corporate, then you should pull the wool from in front of your eyes. No one thinks that Verison shouldn't supply the name if there is reasonable evidence. We all just would feel a lot safer in trusting a judge to decide what is 'reasonable evidence' as opposed to the RIAA deciding. As to the insulting tone of your post, it sounds to me like you are just taking such a hard-line stance becuase you are in fact hiding something. I suspect you have violated one of my copyrights! You have committed an illegal act and your privacy should be gone! I demand your real name!
there are genes for IQ and intelligence and if you give someone an IQ of 500 where the norm is 120 then that GM person will definitely do better. But you do have a point. I saw a show on GM and it turns out a lot of there GM experiments they do on humans do result in one good side-effect, however, they also carry with them 100 other bad side-effects that outweigh any possible gain.
It all is a matter of how extensive the modifications are. GM can be used to fix 'genetic defects'. The great danger is: what is your definition of genetic defect? Will there be a future where having looks that aren't at the level of a supermodel be considered a gentic defect? It would be great to cure hemophilia, hereditary forms of cancer, and other such diseases and someone will eventually do so regardless of legality. The bottle can't hold back a genie like this forever, some will inevitably flock to it like sailors to a siren. However, we all now what happened to the sailors who did flock to the sirens.
there is an actual breach of property rights That is highly debatable. I agree that hacking is not ethical, but it would be better if you dealt with as a violation of privacy. Technically, no ever enters your computer (assuming they don't physically come into your house and open the box) and so property law doesn't really hold true. My computer sends requests to your computer, your computer sends replies. It is the same as yelling at you from across the street. If I trick you into getting you to yell sensitive information back at me, I have not tresspassed and yet I have, in a manner of speaking, hacked into you. This is not a pefect analogy, but it holds the same weight as your analogy of thinking of cyberspace as real space (and hence tresspasable.) No matter what analogy you use though, hacking does not necessarily fit the old norms of property law. The fact remains that cyberspace property and real space property are fundementally different and so you cannot simply assume that the old laws of property cover this new type of medium, especially considering that real space property laws were written to protect only real space property. As such, discussion must be held to determine how we will view this new type of 'property'. You see regulation of it as an extension of the values that influence real space property law. However, the concept of seeing regulation of cyberspace as being similiar to the regulation of drugs is also a valid viewpoint. An example of such an argument would be that: hackers have chosen not to conform to the norms of what most people would consider to be ethical conduct on the net; whether this is illegal or not is as artificial as the computer networks cyberspace exists on. In the end, comparing computers and drugs is as logical as comparing cyberspace to property; if your final line holds true for one, it holds true for your comparing cyberspace to real property as well. You, accidently I assume, allowed your analogy of seeing cyberspace as property to cause a myopic effect that blinded you to seeing cyberspace regulation from a different viewpoint (the greatest danger of analogies.)
They also have decided that electritic lights and paper money don't give the GW customer the right 'experience'. So from now on they will be using torches and only excepting gold coins (or in the case of japanese made wargames, only gil.)
No one gives a damn if you write your senator (or rep.). If you think it makes any difference, you are lying to yourself. The politicians don't give a shit about the public. They vote the way the people who pay for their campaigns want them to vote. This country was once a democracy. Now it is as democratic as the business you work at. What your bosses say goes. Welcome to the real world. Doesn't it suck?
Legal Mumbo Jumbo only leads to greater confusion. When its a juries choice to choose to listen to this crap or to the RIAA, no matter how bizarre the RIAA claims become, juries would rather listen to them. Why? They speak english!
Each pirated version of Windows running is one less copy of Linux Why does everyone always assume that if you run one OS that means you can't run another? I have a tri-boot, I run WinME, Redhat, and FreeBSD on the same machine. Running multiple OS's gives you the best of all possible worlds (except for the fact you can't also run OS X.)Though I have never and would never pirate an OS (too risky - a little tampering and a corrupted OS could fry your PC), my understanding is taht people who do often run dual boot systems so this 'one less copy of linux' stuff is crap.
"or was it the result of some smart people doing a lot of hard thinking, making some mistakes, enduring frustration, having flashes of brilliance, and developing a technique which provides a great deal of value to a lot of people?"
Mathematical proofs fall under this description as does most of the methods for solving Linear Algebra problems. As I said, mathematical processes are not patentable and neither are processes which can be thought out by the human mind the prime example being mental math (and any computer algorithm since it was designed by a human who thought it out can obviously be thought out by a human.) In patent law there is a thing called 'sweat equity'. Basically it is an argument that since I did all this hard work for something I should make money off it. It was a rejected argument initially and has remained a rejected argument for nearly 100 years. I have no doubts Google's implementation of the algorithm is patentable, but teh algorithm, the process by which results are computed, should not be patentable.
"I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas"
Algroithms and scientific ideas should not be patentable. Patent law in the U.S. was orginally designed to 'stimulate invention and creativity.' The law was designed as a social contract, we will give you the exclusive rights to such and such an invention in exchange for you publically announcing not only that you have invented this but detailing how it works. The idea behind this is that you benefit somewhat from legal monoply while the public beenfits from having a new idea out there, one which it was assumed by the creaters of the law would be built upon and surpassed by better inventions by the time the patent ran out. The monolply that coems with a patent was only tolerated so that new ideas would be open to the public and creativity would flourish(not just by you but by the public since they could now view the patent.) However, we increasingly see people patenting things, not to stimulate craetivity and new ideas, but rather to supress craetivity and to prohibit people from building on inventions.
Now we come to algorithms and scientific ideas. Imagine if Djkstra patented his algroithms? Imagine if all the sort algorithms had been patented? Imagine if the theory of relativity had been patented? Imagine if Rutherford had patented his ideas on the atom, or if the theory of elctromagnetism had been patented? The patenting of such things do not stimulate invention or creativity. Rather it creates a monopoly that stagnates a field of science. Such monoplies were not nor ever will be justifiable under patent law. In addition, patent law bars the patenting of processes that can be potentially thought through by a human. This is why mathemtaical algorithms (or proofs) cannot be patented. The algorithms that have been patented have been only patented since they exist on machines and even this is highly debated (in fact, depending on what district of the federal government your case is heard in decides if they take a computer algorithm to be patentable or not.) Algroithms can be thought out by the human mind hence they should not be patentable. In addition, scientific ideas are laws of nature which by patent law are not patnetable. What if Netwon patented gravity and then decided to take a royality from everyone making use of the idea? Every physicist on Earth and every physics textbook would have had to pay him.
In the end, patent law (and copyright law for taht matter) were designmed to stimulate invention and creativity, not only by you but the public as well. the government never garuntees you will make money for an idea, they simply have decided that in some cases it is in the publics best interests to grant you limited control of an idea. Once such a protection is no longer in the publics best interests (teh governemnt considers the publics bets interests far more important tahn any indivisuals, the idea of government is utilitarian at heart), any such control of an idea is a violation of teh spirit of copyright and patent law.
The music industry has been trying to get people to crackdown on us for some time now. They don't tolerate us. However, all their 'solutions' have not only failed to fix the 'problem', they have actually made the situation even worse for themselves. We should all donate to the RIAA. The more they try to do something about it, the worse off they are.
Newsflash dude: None of these stories are funny. They are stupid. So stupid in fact that the word stupid can't possibly encompass them. Moronic perhaps or just plain idiotic don't do them justice either. If these stories were posts they would be modded down as flamebait, redundent, and your user account would probably get canned. If there is any descent fragments left in your sadistic montor-tanned mind, you will cease to posts these w`orthless pieces of crap that you call funny stories to slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server
In true Microsoft fashion, this really means "the command line is the only part of the server that actually works."
The difference is a judge decided that it was reasonable to assume this guy had done something illegal and might flee if left unwatched. The judge decided that there was at least some evidence this guy had doen something.
In the Verison case, the RIAA has assumed this person has done soemthing illegal and now wants their name. The RIAA is under no burden to prove that there is in fact any evidence he did, they only have to reach the point where they can suspect he did. In such a case, anyone (you, me, or even the village idiot) could suspect you had violated their copyright and thus request your name. Let's for example, say that a stalker was folllowing you online. In order to get your name, all they would have to do is get a little information (ip address), file a patent or copyight, and then go to Verison and claim you violated it and that they need to give you taht person's name. All that stalker would need to do is claim you violated it and Verison is forced to supply your name. If you don't see the potential abuse of this, both private and corporate, then you should pull the wool from in front of your eyes. No one thinks that Verison shouldn't supply the name if there is reasonable evidence. We all just would feel a lot safer in trusting a judge to decide what is 'reasonable evidence' as opposed to the RIAA deciding. As to the insulting tone of your post, it sounds to me like you are just taking such a hard-line stance becuase you are in fact hiding something. I suspect you have violated one of my copyrights! You have committed an illegal act and your privacy should be gone! I demand your real name!
Number 17 looks just like you!!!
there are genes for IQ and intelligence and if you give someone an IQ of 500 where the norm is 120 then that GM person will definitely do better. But you do have a point. I saw a show on GM and it turns out a lot of there GM experiments they do on humans do result in one good side-effect, however, they also carry with them 100 other bad side-effects that outweigh any possible gain.
It all is a matter of how extensive the modifications are. GM can be used to fix 'genetic defects'. The great danger is: what is your definition of genetic defect? Will there be a future where having looks that aren't at the level of a supermodel be considered a gentic defect? It would be great to cure hemophilia, hereditary forms of cancer, and other such diseases and someone will eventually do so regardless of legality. The bottle can't hold back a genie like this forever, some will inevitably flock to it like sailors to a siren. However, we all now what happened to the sailors who did flock to the sirens.
One word: Gattaca
For the first time I am actually hoping that a company will get crushed under the iron fist of IBM. Armeggedon cannot be too far off!
there is an actual breach of property rights
That is highly debatable. I agree that hacking is not ethical, but it would be better if you dealt with as a violation of privacy. Technically, no ever enters your computer (assuming they don't physically come into your house and open the box) and so property law doesn't really hold true. My computer sends requests to your computer, your computer sends replies. It is the same as yelling at you from across the street. If I trick you into getting you to yell sensitive information back at me, I have not tresspassed and yet I have, in a manner of speaking, hacked into you. This is not a pefect analogy, but it holds the same weight as your analogy of thinking of cyberspace as real space (and hence tresspasable.) No matter what analogy you use though, hacking does not necessarily fit the old norms of property law. The fact remains that cyberspace property and real space property are fundementally different and so you cannot simply assume that the old laws of property cover this new type of medium, especially considering that real space property laws were written to protect only real space property. As such, discussion must be held to determine how we will view this new type of 'property'. You see regulation of it as an extension of the values that influence real space property law. However, the concept of seeing regulation of cyberspace as being similiar to the regulation of drugs is also a valid viewpoint. An example of such an argument would be that: hackers have chosen not to conform to the norms of what most people would consider to be ethical conduct on the net; whether this is illegal or not is as artificial as the computer networks cyberspace exists on. In the end, comparing computers and drugs is as logical as comparing cyberspace to property; if your final line holds true for one, it holds true for your comparing cyberspace to real property as well. You, accidently I assume, allowed your analogy of seeing cyberspace as property to cause a myopic effect that blinded you to seeing cyberspace regulation from a different viewpoint (the greatest danger of analogies.)
Click on this banner for information on protecting your privacy!
They also have decided that electritic lights and paper money don't give the GW customer the right 'experience'. So from now on they will be using torches and only excepting gold coins (or in the case of japanese made wargames, only gil.)
I have so much frigging Karma that I can post crap like this and get away with it! Trolling irrelevancy, here I come!
No one gives a damn if you write your senator (or rep.). If you think it makes any difference, you are lying to yourself. The politicians don't give a shit about the public. They vote the way the people who pay for their campaigns want them to vote. This country was once a democracy. Now it is as democratic as the business you work at. What your bosses say goes. Welcome to the real world. Doesn't it suck?
Legal Mumbo Jumbo only leads to greater confusion. When its a juries choice to choose to listen to this crap or to the RIAA, no matter how bizarre the RIAA claims become, juries would rather listen to them. Why? They speak english!
Frankly, who gives a shit.... Mooooo!
Each pirated version of Windows running is one less copy of Linux
Why does everyone always assume that if you run one OS that means you can't run another? I have a tri-boot, I run WinME, Redhat, and FreeBSD on the same machine. Running multiple OS's gives you the best of all possible worlds (except for the fact you can't also run OS X.)Though I have never and would never pirate an OS (too risky - a little tampering and a corrupted OS could fry your PC), my understanding is taht people who do often run dual boot systems so this 'one less copy of linux' stuff is crap.
For the love of... not another reference to the fall of Rome!!!
of the world unite!
"or was it the result of some smart people doing a lot of hard thinking, making some mistakes, enduring frustration, having flashes of brilliance, and developing a technique which provides a great deal of value to a lot of people?"
Mathematical proofs fall under this description as does most of the methods for solving Linear Algebra problems. As I said, mathematical processes are not patentable and neither are processes which can be thought out by the human mind the prime example being mental math (and any computer algorithm since it was designed by a human who thought it out can obviously be thought out by a human.) In patent law there is a thing called 'sweat equity'. Basically it is an argument that since I did all this hard work for something I should make money off it. It was a rejected argument initially and has remained a rejected argument for nearly 100 years. I have no doubts Google's implementation of the algorithm is patentable, but teh algorithm, the process by which results are computed, should not be patentable.
"I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas"
Algroithms and scientific ideas should not be patentable. Patent law in the U.S. was orginally designed to 'stimulate invention and creativity.' The law was designed as a social contract, we will give you the exclusive rights to such and such an invention in exchange for you publically announcing not only that you have invented this but detailing how it works. The idea behind this is that you benefit somewhat from legal monoply while the public beenfits from having a new idea out there, one which it was assumed by the creaters of the law would be built upon and surpassed by better inventions by the time the patent ran out. The monolply that coems with a patent was only tolerated so that new ideas would be open to the public and creativity would flourish(not just by you but by the public since they could now view the patent.) However, we increasingly see people patenting things, not to stimulate craetivity and new ideas, but rather to supress craetivity and to prohibit people from building on inventions.
Now we come to algorithms and scientific ideas. Imagine if Djkstra patented his algroithms? Imagine if all the sort algorithms had been patented? Imagine if the theory of relativity had been patented? Imagine if Rutherford had patented his ideas on the atom, or if the theory of elctromagnetism had been patented? The patenting of such things do not stimulate invention or creativity. Rather it creates a monopoly that stagnates a field of science. Such monoplies were not nor ever will be justifiable under patent law. In addition, patent law bars the patenting of processes that can be potentially thought through by a human. This is why mathemtaical algorithms (or proofs) cannot be patented. The algorithms that have been patented have been only patented since they exist on machines and even this is highly debated (in fact, depending on what district of the federal government your case is heard in decides if they take a computer algorithm to be patentable or not.) Algroithms can be thought out by the human mind hence they should not be patentable. In addition, scientific ideas are laws of nature which by patent law are not patnetable. What if Netwon patented gravity and then decided to take a royality from everyone making use of the idea? Every physicist on Earth and every physics textbook would have had to pay him.
In the end, patent law (and copyright law for taht matter) were designmed to stimulate invention and creativity, not only by you but the public as well. the government never garuntees you will make money for an idea, they simply have decided that in some cases it is in the publics best interests to grant you limited control of an idea. Once such a protection is no longer in the publics best interests (teh governemnt considers the publics bets interests far more important tahn any indivisuals, the idea of government is utilitarian at heart), any such control of an idea is a violation of teh spirit of copyright and patent law.
The music industry has been trying to get people to crackdown on us for some time now. They don't tolerate us. However, all their 'solutions' have not only failed to fix the 'problem', they have actually made the situation even worse for themselves. We should all donate to the RIAA. The more they try to do something about it, the worse off they are.
You are an idiot.
Newsflash dude: None of these stories are funny. They are stupid. So stupid in fact that the word stupid can't possibly encompass them. Moronic perhaps or just plain idiotic don't do them justice either. If these stories were posts they would be modded down as flamebait, redundent, and your user account would probably get canned. If there is any descent fragments left in your sadistic montor-tanned mind, you will cease to posts these w`orthless pieces of crap that you call funny stories to slashdot.
And in other news: Playboy will also be put on the restricted list because it displays sex as the only way to have fun...
Maybe we should all start writing letters to our congressman and senators to adopt this bill.
That's why all my emails to goatse.cx aren't getting there!